Despite my reputation online, in the Oscar race and on message boards around the internet, I didn’t start my site to be a “feminist” blogger or a “civil rights” blogger. It just turned out that way. I use quotes because nothing riles people up more than these two topics vis-à-vis the Oscar race. Or any subject really. You want to see any angry mob anywhere on the internet, bring up these two topics in a piece. Thing is, sixteen years at my job and I started to notice things that disturbed me. Where Hollywood movies are concerned, Oscar movies, the ones critics pay attention to, there seems to be a bizarre kind of obsession with male-driven, sexless, PG-13 dramas that are rarely about women or other minorities. I don’t know the reason why but as I watch this go down every year I find myself unable to hold my tongue, for better or worse, usually worse.
While we have a record number of women behind the camera – Ava DuVernay’s wild breakout film, Selma, and Angelina Jolie’s upcoming Unbroken, not to mention Gillian Flynn making history as the first female novelist who adapted her own work headed for the Adapted Screenplay race. But.
Now that the Oscar race is coming closer to the end, it’s beginning to dawn on the film community that, indeed, 2014 was a terrible year for lead actresses. Not just regular terrible, like a Blue Jasmine here or a Black Swan there – but terrible terrible, like Silver Linings Playbook terrible where the best alternative to what should have been a supporting part – as Jennifer Lawrence was – turned into the best option for the lead Oscar. She was great – but it was a supporting part. God help us if that defines leading roles for an actresses.
The global film community doesn’t have a problem telling women’s stories. Poland’s Ida, Canada’s breathtaking Mommy, France’s Two Days, One Night tell unique stories of women – some flattering, some not. These are adult women, of course, who have actual internal lives written about on screen and here’s the kicker – all by male filmmakers. Imagine that.
The documentary and animated branches do not have trouble telling stories about women. Frozen is still a worldwide phenomenon and is helping to change things. Miyazaki’s Spirited Away, and most of his films, revolve around a female protagonist. The documentary filmmakers this year, like Rory Kennedy and Laura Poitras are women, but there are also plenty of real life stories about women -because yeah, we’re kind of here aren’t we? We’re everywhere.
Comedies and action films can have women in them – like Tammy, like Lucy. Sure, critics are harsh but the people love it, box office proves this.
It is only in one area where Oscar matters that women are invisible. The dominant films this year are about male protagonists. Women are there merely to serve the character arc of the male lead.
I was recently approached on Twitter by Guy Lodge who said he thought I advocated for critics to support films merely because they starred or were made by women or other minorities. I told him that wasn’t at all what I said – just that it seems to me overall “taste” is defined by a singular demographic. That appears to be the only explanation when films that are really actually quite good (Eleanor Rigby, for instance) are chewed up and spit out. If a film is bad, it’s bad. But you see more allowances, excuses and forgiving hearts for Interstellar than you’d ever see for any film starring a woman. I’m not sure whether anyone is really interested in films about women anymore. I am worried that we are headed in that direction.
First, let’s look at the Best Actress possibilities as decided by the pundits:
Julianne Moore, Still Alice
Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl
Reese Witherspoon, Wild
Hilary Swank, The Homesman
Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything
Anne Dorval, Mommy
Shailene Woodley, The Fault in our Stars
Jessica Chastain, Eleanor Rigby
Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Belle
Julianne Moore, Maps to the Stars
Juliet Binoche, Clouds of Sils Maria
Next, the Best Picture contenders. *Indicates that it’s most likely to be nominated for Best Picture (supporting actress contenders in bold).
*Whiplash (a girlfriend, fleeting shot of a female musician)
*The Imitation Game (points for a slightly more interesting supporting turn, of course supporting, by Keira Knightley)
*Boyhood (again, strong supporting females, perhaps the best of this year)
*Interstellar (again, props for positive role models in its supporting characters)
*Birdman (great supporting characters but supporting nonetheless)
*Selma – (the women matter and not just vis-à-vis the men but they are supporting).
The Gambler (typical supporting characters, old-fashioned and dated)
A Most Violent Year (the best thing about the movie is the supporting female who is barely in it)
Foxcatcher (hardly any women but great turns by what little remain)
The Grand Budapest Hotel (great supporting characters but supporting nonetheless)
American Sniper (great supporting characters but supporting nonetheless)
Mr. Turner (great supporting characters but supporting nonetheless)
Here are the Best Picture contenders with Best Actress contenders in them:
*The Theory of Everything
*Gone Girl
The Homesman
Wild
And to be perfectly frank, only one of these is being SERIOUSLY considered by the majority of pundits. That means, unless Into the Woods becomes a major player, you’re looking at ONE film in the entire race for Best Picture that has a lead actress contender at all (Felicity Jones).
Several bloggers have tried to say that there are plenty of women but that the pundits don’t know where to look. They point to less-buzzed performances, like Gugu Mbatha-Raw in Belle, Jenny Slate in Obvious Child, Mia Wasikowska in Tracks, Elisabeth Moss in Listen Up, Philip or The One I love, both leads in Laggies, even Angelina Jolie in Maleficent, or Scarlett Johannson in Lucy. But none of these movies have the reviews to push any of these contenders into the race, no matter if they made money or not, no matter if any of the major critics groups gives them a prize or not. Sure, they can sometimes push forward someone like Emmanuelle Riva in Amour but even that ended up with a Best Picture nomination. Pushing one singular performance without everything that goes along with it – usually a bravura director like Michael Haneke – is tough. Women do not have that kind of clout in Hollywood anymore, not for a long time. They don’t get nominated just for bringing a film past $100 million. They have to have given one of the best performances of the year. None of those above mentioned films have any Best Picture heat whatsoever, not even close.
Why does it work that way? I don’t know. It just does. Perhaps because it’s tough to build a giant consensus when there are so many “little” choices. The consensus builds around the big choices and those usually are built around movies people want to watch. One performance from an actress like Jenny Slate isn’t necessarily going to draw many eyeballs, particularly middle-aged white dudes. So think about what builds a consensus because with the Oscar race that’s mostly what we’re talking about.
And indeed, look outside the Hollywood system and you’ll find plenty: Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night), Anne Dorval (Mommy), Agata Trzebuchowska (Ida) to name a few. It’s incredibly difficult to break through as a non-American or British actress but it is not impossible. It just takes a lot of buzz and a lot of publicity. Right now, I’m not seeing any rallying opinions around any of these because, once again, the critics were “meh” on the Dardennes’ Two Days and they’re even kind of surprisingly, freakishly meh on Mommy. At some point you have to start to wonder — do they just not like stories about women?
I suspect it might have to do with a couple of theories. They are probably unpopular theories by now but theories nonetheless.
1) Political correctness has shaped how many films about American women are reviewed. Their sex undermines their ability to be judged as human because they are considered an under-served, oppressed minority first and a human last. The Homesman and Gone Girl are two films about women, with women in the leads but women who are not particularly good role models, to say the least. These are flawed women, you know, kind of like human beings? This is also the case with other minorities – gay characters, black and Asian characters. They have to be “good” or else they ripped apart by the collective. That makes storytellers have to think twice about what they decide to focus on. And what does that leave us with, my friends? Say it with me now. You should know this by heart if you follow my site: stories about white straight men because they are unassailable. They can be old, young, ugly, smart, stupid, mean, evil, kind, romantic, corrupt, sexist, superheroes, victims, murderers, employees, bosses, husbands, fathers, mob bosses, movie moguls, presidents, cowboys, naked, dead, happy, sad, frustrated, oppressed, suicidal, drug addicted…
Women have to be … positive role models and that leads to the most bland portrayals imaginable. Trust me. That was why Gone Girl was — and Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo before it, so goddamned refreshing. Give me more than just a good role model. I don’t need movies to tell me what kind of person I need to be. I don’t need movies to define who women are – I need artists to tell stories about women period.
We are ignited by great storytelling like Black Swan, All About Eve, Gone with the Wind, A Streetcar Named Desire, Bonnie and Clyde, Terms of Endearment, The Last Picture Show, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and other films that feature real people who just so happen to be women. Take a look at your own life – what do you see? Do you see only men doing the things that matter?
2) Critics, bloggers and industry voters have to give a shit. Here’s the dirty little secret I’ve come to discover after watching films roll out and the way people I know who cover movies respond to those films. For every Devin Faraci who really does give a shit there are dozens more who don’t. Not only don’t they care but they it isn’t even a consideration. Women and men both respond similarly. We’ve been conditioned to respond to the best films whether they star women or men and the best films right now are films about men. No one really cares much if stories of women are being told. It isn’t a consideration. Moreover, I suspect that there’s a low hum of people who would really prefer to not have to see stories about women – that’s why they’re ghettoized as “chick flicks.” When a movie starring a woman does well at the box office that’s because certain demographics responded. With The Hunger Games, Twilight and Divergent it was the tweener girls. With Gone Girl it’s the sad airport moms who like to read “trash” because they have nothing better to do with their time. It’s never just taken as an unqualified success.
I grew up in the 1970s when women demanded to be treated equally, at the very least, where people complained of stereotypical women as supporting characters. What I see now are filmmakers who think that a spunky, spicy supporting girlfriend who tells it like it is counts as a good female character. It doesn’t. I’m not saying they have to be good characters or positive role models, or that they should always be stereotypes – I’m saying they should count as people and not just tools to help the protagonist evolve. Hell, they should BE protagonists.
Alfonso Cuaron did it with Gravity and Christopher Nolan did it with Interstellar – swapped out male roles for female. I’m gonna bet that Gravity would have made more money if it starred a man and that Interstellar would not be criticized as much for all that “emotion” if that part were a boy crying. Hell, did anyone complain when Elliot balled his eyes out in E.T.? The status quo wants the men in the leading roles. But these filmmakers made a conscious choice to take a big risk to TELL A BETTER STORY. It adds dimension and depth simply by choosing a different kind of player.
In the great film Casting By there is the story of how Danny Glover got cast in Lethal Weapon. The studio wanted a white male but Marion Dougherty was thinking outside the box. Not only did it bring success to the film overall but added unexpected dimension to the film. Why do more filmmakers not think this why?
We have to ask ourselves the harder questions now about whether women really matter or not, whether anyone cares about them or their stories in film. There is no problem with women on television it is only where the raising of money is concerned, the collateral, that this kind of rigid thinking takes hold.
Recently, as I mentioned in an earlier column today, I was watching Olive Kitteridge with fascination at Frances McDormand’s brilliant performance. I was thinking, here I am about to enter middle age and I have no stories that are being told in American film about where I’m headed. Worse, actresses are shamed into making themselves look younger because younger is all Hollywood wants now. The economics have dictated that biology rules – men of all ages desire younger women and thus, in order to ensure maximum ticket revenue women have to be young or else sidelined. But women like me – what choice do we have? We can watch TV. We can move out of the country. We can give up on Hollywood. Here’s the even darker truth: we’re the majority of the ticket buyers. 52% of ticket buyers are women, presumably buying tickets for their dumb adolescents who will cut their teeth on movies that have obliterated all traces of older women except in supporting parts as mothers or teachers or judges.
Hollywood has written itself into a corner. And it’s only getting worse.
Bravo to those who try anyway, even if they fail. Jason Reitman’s Young Adult featured a fantastic, bizarre, mean lead character. Maybe it was a failure overall but what a risk he took.
There, I ranted and now I can enjoy the rest of my day. Goodnight, thanks for playing.
May I suggest another brilliant performance by an actress in a film that has not received the recognition it deserved? Michelle Monaghan gives a rich and fully human portrayal of a flawed medic coming home from Afghanistan in FORT BLISS. Writer/Director Claudia Myers captures the experience of being a woman serving in the Army perfectly, with all its tensions, complexities, and pride of achievement.
Sasha I wanted to know if you have seen Juliette Binoche in 1000 Times Good Night. It has played at festivals around the globe in 2014, and it’s another example of a fantastic female performance from an international film that is being completely ignored here in the States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y98z8tkpNe8&feature=youtu.be
Interesting piece, Sasha, and great to read Guy Lodge here.
“….France’s Two Days, One Night” —> To nitpick, I would say this is more a Belgian film (French/Belgian co-production, French star, but Belgian directors/writers/supporting cast)
The most disheartening thing is, once people have picked a side (in this case, women ARE fairly represented on American film vs. women ARE NOT fairly represented on American film), they stick by it. As if they are supporting a sports team, they will not be accused of being a fair-weather fan. Seeing as this issue can be (erroneously) seen as a battle-of-the-sexes by a lot of dimwits, it’s easy for many guys to make up their mind before they are even presented with the evidence.
When actors and actresses are both fairly represented on screen, with a diverse amount of quality roles to choose from, the movie goer is rewarded with better films. An instance in which a battle-of-the-sexes does result in good films.
@ A Male Person – Oof, you can’t even pull a good example to make your point. Hopkins had minimal screentime, but Hannibal Lecter dominates the film even when he’s not on screen. Next time use David Niven (in Separate Tables) as an example for your ridiculous counterpoint.
Sasha, it’s appropriate the you illustrated your article with a still from Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe? Elizabeth Taylor was the top grossing box office star in 1961 (WAOVW came out later on) however she was in the top ten throughout the Fifties and Sixties (#2 in ’58 and #3 in ’66, for instance). The Sixties was very diverse as far as top grossing star power is concerned: Julie Andrews reigned in 1966 and 1967, Doris Day in 1960, 1962-1964, and Sidney Poitier in 1968 – per Quigley Publishing. QP polled box offices as to find out which stars brought out the ticket buyers.
The very first Top 10 List by Quigley Publishing was for 1932 and it read: 1) Marie Dressler 2) Janet Gaynor 3) Joan Crawford 4) Charles Farrell 5) Greta Garbo 6) Norma Shearer 7) Wallace Beerey 8) Clark Gable 9) Will Rogers 10) Joe E. Brown. You would NEVER see a list like this that’s dominated by actresses nowadays, and that was just 12 years after women gained the right to vote!
The most recent iteration is somewhat encouraging (2013): 1) Jennifer Lawrence 2) Sandra Bullock 3) Bradley Cooper 4) Tom Hanks 5) Denzel Washington 6) Leo DiCaprio 7) Robert Downey Jr. 8) Hugh Jackman 9) Brad Pitt 10) Melissa McCarthy.
Thoroughly agree with you, Bryce
Oh Bryce, don’t even. I’m dying here.
I could have sworn I saw a comment by Guy Lodge on this thread. I though it was a pretty valuable comment.
Just to put my initial question to you in context, Sasha, this is the Twitter exchange that led me to think you “advocated for critics to support films merely because they starred or were made by women or other minorities.”
https://twitter.com/AwardsDaily/status/515383016042938368
After you stated that critics and bloggers “could change things” if only they were more supportive of films made by or focused on women, one of your followers added the qualification “if the movie is good”. Your response, and I’m quoting directly here: “Bullshit. Doesn’t even matter.”
So I think you can see why I interpreted (or misinterpreted) your stance as I did, and why I was surprised, during our Twitter discussion last week, to hear you say that you haven’t written about Belle — a female-driven drama written and directed by black women — because you don’t personally like the film that much. That’s a totally reasonable position in itself, but it does somewhat contradict your earlier statement.
Your site is focused on advocacy — fair enough. It is centred on the relatively mainstream awards season — also fair enough. But those are both selective dictates that, by near-necessity, limit the range of films you cover on this site: I appreciate your gestures toward alternative film cultures, but the fact that the three foreign-language films that are repeatedly mentioned in this article are also among the leading submissions for the foreign-language Oscar underlines that point. There’s nothing wrong with concentrating your attention on the films most immediately relevant to the remit of your site. However, it’s a bit rich to then blame the indifference of “middle-aged white dudes” for the fact that audience eyeballs aren’t being drawn to, say, Jenny Slate’s remarkable, thoroughly award-worthy work in Obvious Child, a film which I haven’t seen discussed nearly as extensively on this site as, say, The Imitation Game. You’re as complicit in the film’s low profile as any of the male critics you claim are stifling the conversation for and about women in contemporary cinema.
I’m not looking to argue, since we’re fundamentally on the same side — I’m as keen as you are to raise and broaden the platform for female artists in all corners of the industry. (Celine Sciamma’s Girlhood is currently my favourite narrative film of the year, and I only wish I had a high-profile personal outlet with the following of Awards Daily to tell people that!) You’re fighting the good fight, but it seems to me you’re partly fighting yourself on this issue. Please continue to champion the female artists you most believe in, but recognize that you’re not attempting to represent the whole picture any more or less than the male critics that you imply are conspiring against films like Two Days, One Night (a lavishly acclaimed film by any measure, incidentally, including those of review-aggregate sites) on the basis of gender.
I don’t know what reviews you’re reading but from what I’ve read so far, Two Days, One Night and Mommy are getting ecstatic reviews. The Dardennes Brothers’ films are generally always critically praised and although Xavier Dolan is polarizing, Mommy seems to be his critical breakthrough.And y
And yes, both of these films feature two outstanding female performances that should undoubtedly be considered for awards (beyond best actress), but the problem is not the inherent sexism and sexism in particular to female-led films, but a lack of distributor money for a PR campaign to win Oscars that Paramount, Weinstein, Disney, etc., will almost certainly throw out.
Oh, Gravity…you’re the Argo of 2013.
i love sasha, in ranting mode ! 🙂
I’m with Ryan actually. Interstellar is probably number 7 or 8 for me this year.
“I think Interstellar is one of the best movies of the year.”
Well, glad it’s now in the open! Can’t unsay it now. Officially not one of the cool kids this season.
” < <<<<>>>>”
black hole notation?
Ehh I think you -yet again- made my point better than I myself did, Ryan. I meant mostly that they are different Oscar players. I do believe GRAVITY is the better film, but “does not deserve it” makes INTERSTELLAR sound like AVATAR – wasn’t my intention, Nolanytes!
Don’t know if I’ve gone on record, but I think Interstellar is one of the best movies of the year. Just probably not (for me) one of the 5 best or 3 best.
Gravity had near universal admiration, even from people who had different #1 favorites. I believe Interstellar deserves all of the praise it gets from its supporters, but it also deserves a fair amount of the raised eyebrows it gets from some of its detractors.
Really all I meant to say was: Interstellar is not going to be tying with any other movie as the year’s best the night the Producers Guild Awards are handed out.
You know I’m all positive on INTERSTELLAR and shit, but please let’s stop mentioning it alongside GRAVITY. It does not deserve it.
You know I’m all positive on INTERSTELLAR and shit, but please let’s stop mentioning it alongside GRAVITY. It does not deserve it.
Good point, Bryce.
Gravity came thisclose to winning Best Picture.
Interstellar is this <<<<<<>>>>> close.
QMark, I’d seen Ann Dowd in Bachelorette, though I hated that movie, and I recall seeing it around the same time as Compliance, I think. Either way, it’s certainly been over a year since I’ve seen her in something. I don’t watch a lot of TV – the prestige still lies in film, alas, and I’d rather see an actor whose breakthrough came in a film forge a successful career in that artistic medium, rather than have to side into another in order to experience success. Not being a follower of TV, I found myself at a loss wondering where she’d been these last few months, and that’s pretty sad. Amy Adams got a similar career boost in Junebug, only she got an Oscar nomination out of that and then a career that’s seen her assume A-list status in less than a decade.
…. two fathers with a distinct knowledge of space travel and/or astrophysics, that is. Brand learns everything from her father, and Murph is put in a position where her career choice actively reflects her problematic relation with her father (and his choice in life).
I’m not talking real life here (yes, it’s tough becoming a scientist in real life!), but inside of a blockbuster universe logic, it’s worth noticing (maybe even emblematic?) that it takes two father figures for them to get a foothold inside the sciences.
it’s worth noticing (maybe even emblematic?) that it takes two father figures for them to get a foothold inside the sciences.
ok, I know you’re being contrarily mischievous, so I won’t push it. but I don’t remember anyone casting aspersions on George VI’s “accomplishments” in that movie where his father helped him get a foothold in the King business.
So it does seem to sort of prove the point rather that undermine it: Anything a guy does, he does it without any help. But if a girl does anything then it has to be because of daddy’s influence?
I wish you’d been this vigilant a few years ago, and reminded us in 2010 about movie characters who would be nothing without a powerful father.
inside of a blockbuster universe logic…
alright alright, you’re right. “Fuck you, Superman. You wouldn’t be so super without Jor-El.”
See what I mean? How come this question of daddy’s clout never comes up when we talk about male movie characters?
Great piece, Sasha!
Let me tell you that I am absolutely perplexed by the tepid reaction to Mommy in the US. Or at least it seems tepid from here. It is a masterpiece – the acting, the direction, the writing. At the same time the critics drool over The Guardians of the Galaxy.
Julian:
I don’t know if I would make that leap. A lot of children, men or women, enter the sciences because their parents or guardian figures worked in the field. In the male-dominated STEM society we live in, it is an unfortunate truth that most of the science role models for young woman are going to be men. It is a bit circular because we need these young woman to enter and establish themselves in science in order to give the next generation of young woman something more concrete to look up to. With that next generation of woman more successful, it will be easier and easier for girls in primary and secondary education to realize that becoming a scientist does not require crossing some imaginary gender line. In this way, Interstellar isn’t implicity saying that these girls needed their male-father figures to lead them into science, but rather, in a society where there are few visible female scientists, this is the unfortunate reality .
Furthermore, Murph, from a very young age, shows logical inclinations and great intelligence (figuring out the Morse codes and symbols). She may have had some influences from her father, but it is very clear that always she had the potential to do make great scientific contributions when she became older.
“Interstellar isn’t implicity saying that these girls needed their male-father figures to lead them into science…”
Vesh, yes, I have to side with you on this. It’s not as if having a scientist as your dad makes astrophysicist the easy automatic career choice. (I would need to see some data to prove this typically happens, and you KNOW all the real-life scientist dads compile the hell out of data like that.)
If Coop could exert such powerful assistance in his children’s lives then how come his daughter was a genius but his son was such an idiot? Murph gets most of the credit for not deciding to be a luddite like her brother, don’t you think?
Parental influence on a kid’s life is not the same thing as a guy giving a girl a leg up to help her get ahead.
Anyway, how many fathers can really claim credit for their children’s accomplishments? I mean, aside from George H. W. Bush being able to claim all the credit for enabling little George W’s accomplishment of mass-murdering 600,000 innocent Iraqis, pillaging the US economy of 4 trillion dollars and destroying the lives of 460,000 American soldiers. But that’s the heroic story of another of this year’s Oscar movies.
Do you write about any other subject ever anymore?
Re: Paddy Mulholland. You hadn’t seen Ann Dowd since Compliance? I’m having the exact opposite experience…I can’t seem to watch anything with her popping up. On TV it’s important and meaty supporting roles on The Leftovers and Masters Of Sex and a weird brief cameo in True Detective, and in movies it’s much smaller roles in St. Vincent, The Drop and Bachelorette. Another example of how TV is offering much a much wider array of great roles for women than mainstream cinema is these days.
“I’m gonna bet that Gravity would have made more money if it starred a man”
Sandra Bullock is arguably the biggest box office draw in the world. She is the rare star who is both universally respected AND carries zero baggage with audiences — Clooney is hated by some for his politics, Jolie and Pitt for their personal lives AND their politics, etc. A male-starred Gravity maybe, MAYBE only outdraws the Bullock-starred Gravity if the man is Hanks or Depp, and even then it’s a tossup.
“Interstellar would not be criticized as much for all that ’emotion’ if that part were a boy crying”
Very true. The criticism of Hathaway and Chastain bringing too much ’emotion’ to Interstellar’s story is just about the dumbest criticism possible. I thought Hathaway’s big scene was one of the highlights of the film.
Vesh: True, there are two scientist women in Interstellar, but they are there because they are both their father’s daughters…. so implicitly, the film IS actually saying that they are only there because of men (who paved the way for them).
In the midst of all the Interstellar criticism, the one thing I thought was brilliant about the film was having two female characters, both very important to to the narrative, be scientists without any justification. How many times do we see woman as engineers or scientists in films where they have some unecessary backstory or some sort of explicit explanation for why they got to that point. It was nice to see Brand and Murph exist without any post facto rationalization. Nolan even subtly addresses this when Coop talks about once knowing a professor called Dr. Brand and Brand replying, “What makes you think I’m not?”
*SPOILERS*
Moreso, a female character is responsible for the greatest scientific innovation in the history of the human species. How awesome is that? Nolan has repeatedly said that he wants to inspire a generation in the vein of how we used to look up to the stars, but I think a greater accomplishment may be inspiring young woman to join the sciences without fear of violating gender roles. If even one girl aspires to be as successful as Murph, I think the film should be considered an important success. For all the complaints about explicit and expository dialogue in the movie, I would consider this underlying discussion to be the best thing the movie communicates.
Paddy Mullholand — in regards to your comment “Why can’t I be glad to see Ann Dowd headlining a film competing for one of the most prestigious film awards in the world? Because she’s good enough, and enough people know it too.”– It boils down to the sad f*cking reality that Ann Dowd is simply not “marketable” at her current age/career level (I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I have no pull in Hollywood). Yes, in an ideal world we could throw her into a modestly budgeted film that could easily showcase her abilities, that of her co-stars, that of a decent director, writer, and so on… But who would go see it outside of the me’s, you’s, and the few people we could probably convince to go watch it? — enough so to warrant giving her more lucrative/deep roles? And even then, the ones who have the “power” in the industry would probably only take a look at a film like that because of word of mouth (if at all). She’s a woman over a certain age, for starters, and while not in the least bit UN-attractive, she didn’t have the “she was pretty/hot/and could still act” factor that many women in her age range had at some point when they were younger which UNDENIABLY helped their careers well into their 40s and on (Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon, Helen Mirren, to name a few) It’s petty, yes, but indicative of our world (largely), and in many ways true. I hate to say it, but… Had Meryl NOT looked like Meryl in her 20s and early 30s (WASPY blonde hippie chick), would she have “caught on” regardless of her immense talents? It’s food for thought. I hate to think the answer would be no, but… I think it would be.
I think of the movie “Central Station” from Brasil that came out in 1998 featuring Fernanda Montenegro in the lead. She was a woman who was well into her 60s even at that point, yet headlined the film, garnered tons of awards, and even made it to the Oscars with a nomination in the Best Actress category. The film is something of a “modern classic”, and her role was considered one of the best of the year (though it lost out to Gwyneth in Shakespear in Love), but she followed it up with equally rich/complex film roles such as “House of Sand” years later. I can’t help but think certain foreign countries really do have a certain respect/admiration for women of a certain age, and are actually interested in their stories, and will put them on the screen. The USA? Not so much.
Jamdentel– I was actually having a conversation with a friend the other day about Diablo Cody scripts (namely Juno and Young Adult) — which I consider to be two of her BETTER works (never saw Jennifer’s Body, didn’t enjoy her directorial debut with Paradise, admittedly, and only caught a few episodes of US of Tara– interestingly enough, all movies/shows that revolve around female characters, which I applaud). I do feel that the relationships between women (albeit very DIFFERENT types of women) are explored quite well in both Juno and Young Adult. I think Ellen Page and Jennifer Garner’s characters in Juno are pretty well fleshed out (love or hate the dialogue or vibe of the film), and neither succumbs to outside noise, so to speak, especially not from the male characters in the film– (Juno chooses to go through with the adoption and Garner’s character choose to adopt even without her husband). I think what she did with Charlize Theron’s character in Young Adult is nothing short of brilliant, in that even when you MAY start to feel some sympathy for this woman, you absolutely end up hating her at the end all over again. That’s ballsy film making on her and Reitman’s part, in my opinion. It’s too bad that movie never really caught on because people seem to dislike divisive women far more than divisive male characters. At the end of the day, these character types are all part of the human spectrum, so why not write about them? (In an ideal world, I guess). Looking forward to her next screenplay starring Meryl Streep.
I think the bigger problem (and this is strictly opinion/observation) isn’t necessarily the LACK of women who would love to make films, be screenwriters or directors, producers, etc. I think in certain cases it boils down to the fact that a portion of these women who are lucky enough to reach the level where they can make a film or write books themselves may not be interested in making films or art that sheds light on the female cause (which is all together possible.) I’ve met many a contemporary woman who really have no interest in the advancement of their own gender (sad, but true). Adversely, you have male writers and directors whose breadth of work focuses LARGELY on complex women (Xavier Dolan, for instance, who I consider a wonderful young filmmaker)– but even in that case, I think his being a gay male informs those angles in his work, and…. Dear lord, gay men are even LESS represented in film/TV than even women are, so… It’s all a mess!
It’s bugged me for so long that when those stellar female driven films (Blue Jasmine, Black Swan) come along the films overall are kinda sorta talked about as potential nominees, but never talked about as possibly going all the way.
It’s a cliche, but when you hear “A-List Actor starring as vaguely disabled man with accent” it gets talked about as a BP frontrunner and likely winner, where as a female led pic with equally brilliant acting just gets talked up in the Actress category.
If you move out of the country, there’s a decent chance you’ll become a sad airport mom for an hour or so. So it’s probably best that you just stay here. 🙂
Generally speaking the films I like are guy movies. My second favorite movie so far this year is LUCY. But it’s still a guy movie isn’t it? I mean it’s not about traveling pants or falling in love by way of a series of misunderstandings. Chick flicks became chick flicks because no guy in his right mind would go to one without being forced by a chick because they’re awful. Blame the people who love that crap and made those the go to movie for female moviegoers, meaning female moviegoers. It’s all about money, if serious movies about serious women made money then there’d be more of them. The ones where Jennifer Lawrence or Scarlett Johansson kick people in the head make money because moviegoers everywhere, male and female, love seeing people get kicked in the head. That’s just how it works.
It’s always true that there’s an enormous variety of terrific performances from female actors in both leading and supporting parts in film every year. To characterise any specific year in film as either strong or weak in this regard isn’t entirely appropriate; to compare the situation for leading females to those for leading males puts things into a better perspective. But even I’m writing from an international perspective, considering the enormous variety of excellent cinema from all over the globe, in both studio projects from first-world economies and independent, low-budget films.
The US is the world leader in cinema, the most prolific and famous nation in the art form, and where it goes dozens of other nations’ film industries aspire to follow it to. It sets standards and gives inspiration, and for its principal awards body to be provided with such a slim selection of viable female-led candidates for its picks as the best of 2014 – picks which will become known around the world as the definitive best of the year – is reprehensible. Hollywood is saying to the rest of the world that women may buy tickets, but they don’t sell them, that they’re fine supporting players but unreliable leads, that their stories are less worth telling than those of the men they’ve stood beside or behind for century after century, when in fact the opposite ought to be true.
I agree with those who claim that 2014 has been an excellent year for leading women. I think of Juliette Binoche in Camille Claudel 1915, Zhao Wei in Dearest, Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, Marion Cotillard in Two Days One Night (which I don’t believe has been disregarded by critics) and The Immigrant, Julianne Moore in Maps to the Stars, Sidse Babett Knudsen in The Duke of Burgundy, Essie Davis in The Babadook, Ronit Elkabets in Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem, Bae Doo Na in A Girl at My Door, Elisabeth Moss in Listen Up Philip, Jacqueline Bisset in Welcome to New York, Aubrey Plaza in Life After Beth, Hilary Swank in The Homesman, Lika Babluani and Mariam Bokeria in In Bloom and a great many more (including some I’d consider as actors from last year, like Isabelle Huppert in Abuse of Weakness and Charlotte Gainsbourg and Stacy Martin in Nymphomaniac), and those are just the ones I’ve seen. But the example that is being set globally by the world’s premier film producers, competing for (what’s regarded as) the world’s premier film prize is a heinous one.
It’s not a good enough excuse to claim that the roles are there, and that the films are there, but no-one’s watching them. You can bet that enough people in enough places are watching them, principally people in positions of power, but they’re not acting on them. I saw The Drop today, and was glad to see Ann Dowd in the cast – the first time I’ve seen Ann in any film for well over a year. No doubt she got that role off of her richly-acclaimed performance in Compliance. Someone somewhere noticed her and decided to give her a shot… but it’s a thoroughly supporting role: she plays a co-lead / major supporting character’s sister, with no personal agency, no scenes in which she functions as a lead in any capacity, and very little screentime. Yet I’ve been conditioned to be glad to see her in this modestly-budgeted, modestly-acclaimed, modestly-performing, modestly-successful crime drama. Why can’t I be glad to see Ann Dowd headlining a film competing for one of the most prestigious film awards in the world? Because she’s good enough, and enough people know it too.
The problem lies not with audiences, it lies with Hollywood. They have the financial capacity to take a few more risks and make a few more films based around women and/or by women. If the film costs $50 million and only brings the studio back roughly half of that in the end, well what’s $25 million to lose when they’ll swiftly make that flogging merch for their latest blockbuster franchise, which itself could easily be directed by a woman (didn’t Mamma Mia! make shitloads of money it thoroughly did not deserve?) or even starring a woman in the lead role, and in the majority of major supporting roles too (Maleficent Maleficent Maleficent!).
Rant not over. This rant won’t be over until equality has been achieved in the film industry, and I don’t care how little good this does to air my opinions on here, how little change I can bring about. I’ll fight this fight any way I can.
Sasha, I think a dark horse for Best Actress you haven’t mentioned would be Michelle WIlliams in “Suite Francaise”. I really think this late-blooming release will snatch a nomination for her. Also, I know she has no chance for a nomination, but Tilda Swinton gave a very clever, complex lead performance in “Only Lovers Left Alive”.
You gave me much to think about in your article, Sasha. You’re too young to remember, but the lack of women’s roles in the mid-70s was appallingly bad.
1975 was a perfect example of how bad things really became for actresses, where the winner (Louise Fletcher, basically an unknown at the time) was essentially a supporting performance in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”. Ellen Burstyn went on a rant about the lack of good roles for women and really let the Academy have it. And good for her! The other nominees that year?
The Story of Adele H: Isabelle Adjani (the critics darling that year, but AMPAS very rarely awards performances (Sophia Loren and Marion Cottilard are the only exceptions for lead) given in a non-English film).
Tommy: Ann-Margret (really, I can’t watch this movie)
Hedda: Glenda Jackson (a cakewalk – Jackson could have read the yellow pages in her heyday and they would have nominated her)
Hester Street: Carol Kane (nothing special – they had to fill the field with something)
For me, that’s the most pathetic list of Best Actress nominees I’ve seen.
So, this problem has been around for a long time now.
And you can’t really find this issue when it comes to men’s roles. Best Actor has always, and I mean ALWAYS, been a crowded field in any year. If you look at past Best Actor nominees, you’ll find I’m quite correct in that statement.
Anyway, “hope springs eternal” as they say. Perhaps 2015 will bring us something to look forward to. Thank god Jessica Chastain, Amy Adams, and Julianne Moore are finding good roles. They are the most interesting actresses working today I think.
Poor Young Adult. That was a really great film. My favorite that I’ve seen from Reitman (still haven’t seen Up in the Air). So many people were grumbling that the protagonist was unlikable and the film didn’t have a resolution. Feeble. (Of course, that same year, Kirsten Dunst was totally overlooked for her work in Melancholia, and even if you don’t like von Trier, I think you can agree she was magnificent.)
I’m really excited to see Mommy, more tentative but still interested in The Homesman (I could imagine I would embrace the weirdness that seems to have turned others off), Big Eyes, and Maps to the Stars, and I’ll take Still Alice, Wild, and Theory of Everything as they come. Oh, and Beyond the Lights, because I’d like to see Gugu Mbatha-Raw continue her ascendancy.
I posted this on a different thread, but thought I’d repost it here since its relevant. Here’s my tentative list of Lead Actress Oscar contenders:
BEST ACTRESS:
Julianne Moore – Still Alice
Rosamund Pike – Gone Girl
Felicity Jones – The Theory Of Everything
Reese Witherspoon – Wild
Amy Adams – Big Eyes
Alt. Hilary Swank – The Homesman, Jessica Chastain – Eleanor Rigby, Shailene Woodley – The Fault In Our Stars, Emily Blunt – Into The Woods
That list doesn’t include fantastic performances that have no shot at getting in, like Anne Dorval from Mommy, Marion Cotillard in both The Immigrant and Two Days, One Night, Paulina Garcia in Gloria, Emily Blunt in Edge Of Tomorrow, Mia Wasikowska in Tracks, Tilda Swinton in Only Lovers Left Alive, Scarlett Johansson in Under The Skin, Agata Trzebuchowska and Agata Kulesza in Ida, Kristen Wiig in The Skeleton Twins, Tessa Thompson in Dear White People, Jenny Slate in Obvious Child, Dakota Fanning in Night Moves, Gugu Mbatha-Raw in Belle, Robin Wright in The Congress and Charlotte Gainsbourg in Nymphomaniac.
Anyone who says its a “weak year” for actresses should take a look at the above list. I posted a total of 26 accomplished performances above that are all worthy of praise in one way or another. If you think its a weak year, you’re not looking hard enough. EVERY YEAR EVER has plenty of great work for the curious to seek out and be enthralled by. The problem is that most people don’t give a shit to go out and actually see anything so much of the great work gets marginalized, thus creating a lower demand for, shall we say, more interesting fare at the cinema, thus lowering the promotional capability and reach of the few in the industry who actually foster that kind of work, further pushing said work to the margins where it gets even harder and harder for any normal person to see anything that doesn’t cost 160 million dollars to produce, thus making it virtually impossible that anyone but me and a few other people in this comments section to actually see any of the shit I’m talking about. Which brings us to the present where everyone’s bitching about a behemoth Chris Nolan movie that everyone will see and simultaneously bitching about how there’s no great roles for actresses. Except that there are, and no one is paying to see them. You want more interesting cinema? You gotta pay for it with Time, Effort and Cold Hard Cash. End rant.
One of my favorite performances of the year is Scarlett Johansson in “under the skin. “I know she is a very long shot for an Oscar nomination but I hope she’s remembered in nominations by some of the award groups at the end of the year.
Great piece, Sasha. Two things I’d like to address.
First: speaking for myself as a blogger who loves talking and writing about movies, I think it boils down to fear. Fear of not knowing what to say and how to say it, how what one writes about this subject will come off as. As for the general consensus? It maybe just general indifference.
Second (and this has to do with the conversation for Lead Actress): is Shaileen Woodley REALLY being touted as a Best Actress candidate for “The Fault In Our Stars”? REALLY? I like her as an actor, but God, that was about as empty a film as I’ve seen this year.
“The political correctness of filmmakers tiptoeing around trying not to say anything bad about women is what leads to timid perceptions of what kinds of women should be represented in films. The point is: it’s politically correct to “worry” too much about always depicting “oppressed minorities” in a favorable light, but that attitude ends up robbing them of a fascinating dark-side that white male characters are allowed to flaunt.”
That’s more like it. If that’s what Sasha meant, maybe she should consider using you as her ghost writer, because that’s better writing.
As a reader of an article you often do the same mistake as (maybe) the writer in this case: being in too much of a hurry is never a good idea when approaching a text.
If that’s what Sasha meant, maybe she should consider using you as her ghost writer
problem is, I never have any thoughts in my head worth putting into words until Sasha writes the words first.
We’re all better off if we let Sasha do the writing and I stick to the housekeeping.
“These are flawed women, you know, kind of like human beings? Their sex undermines their ability to be judged as human because they are considered an underserved, oppressed minority first and a human last.”
Sorry, what are you implying here: Amy Dunne (let’s not forget: a character as fucked up as Hannibal Lecter!) isn’t being judged as a ‘human being’ because of her sex??? That’s funny, my take is curiously different: she’s not being judged as a regular human being because she is a crazy lunatic!
Which begs the question: Do you think Hannibal Lecter was considered a ‘human being’ rather than a psychopath? And if that was so, was it because of his sex?
Nonsense.
Sorry, what are you implying here: Amy Dunne (let’s not forget: a character as fucked up as Hannibal Lecter!) isn’t being judged as a ‘human being’ because of her sex???
Let’s take a deep breath and parse this out less drastically, alright? I think these two sentences are two different separate thoughts.
1) “These are flawed women, you know, kind of like human beings?”
This is true, yes? We can agree on this, yes?
2) “Their sex undermines their ability to be judged as human because they are considered an underserved, oppressed minority first and a human last.”
I believe this sentence refers back to the larger point, the first point in the first line of the paragraph: Namely, “Political correctness has shaped how many films about American women are reviewed.” and then from that we can agree: “Their sex undermines their ability to be judged as human because they are considered an underserved, oppressed minority first and a human last.”
See what I mean? The political correctness of filmmakers tiptoeing around trying not to say anything bad about women is what leads to timid perceptions of what kinds of women should be represented in films. The point is: it’s politically correct to “worry” too much about always depicting “oppressed minorities” in a favorable light, but that attitude ends up robbing them of a fascinating dark-side that white male characters are allowed to flaunt.
Gone Girl and The Homesman are rare exceptions to that attitude.
But julian the emperor, I see how the sequence of the sentences might create an unexpected zig-zag in the logic. The logic is there, but it might be tighter if we just swap the order of those two sentences. A good editor would have caught that already, but sometimes I forget that not everybody knows Sasha as well as I do. I’m lucky.
Thanks for pointing out a possible mix-up in how that paragraph can be misread. Easy to fix!
Read it now, gently rearranged, and I think you’ll agree with what’s being said.
It’s funny, as much as DC makes some cringe-worthy casting/directing choices, this one just seems to knock it out of the park entirely. It’s as smart as getting James Gunn to do Guardians.
Yeah, most people know I’m not a promoter of comic book movies, but to have an accomplished female director bust that window would be great. She deserves a large piece of the boys’ pie.
Steve, I read yesterday that Michelle was being considered for Wonder Woman. I’m not sure how I feel about a Wonder Woman movie (never read the comics), I am thrilled that she is making the jump from TV directing to feature films…if she’s picked for the job. She’s one of the best working directors in TV, gender aside.
Sasha, just to let you know Interstellar is receiving more hate than any other “good reviewed” film I’ve seen. It’s at 73 on Metacritic and yet people online, as well as John Q. Public, are saying, “I heard Interstellar’s getting mixed reviews.” No. It’s getting good reviews but not the outstanding, balls to the wall reviews everyone expected it’d get. Nolan said it best that people hold his films to incredibly high standards and he has to endure more criticism than most filmmakers. Also, as I’ve said many times before, Eleanor Rigby was not “chewed up and spit out.” With all the performances you listed that is a great slate. The fact that none of the pundits are talking about it says a lot but guess what? Neither are you. How many times have you mentioned Jenny Slate? Or Elisabeth Moss? Or Gugu Mbatha-Raw? Even Mia Wasikowska, I haven’t heard you mention their names in forever. I’ll quote a little kid from Half Nelson, “So aren’t you part of the machine?” Your voice is as influential as the rest yet you’re only mainly talking about the names that are front and center. You often talk about whatever other people are talking about and wag your finger at the rest but you’re not putting these “less talked about actresses” front and center. I always appreciate what you tend to put front and center and that’s the bullshit of the industry and the films you love, but…if you spent a quarter of the time championing actresses like Moss or Slate or Mbatha-Raw instead of posting full-blown Gone Girl articles (which I love) then there would be much more exposure to the “smaller people”. This isn’t meant to be hostile, just another way of looking at it.
I agree that there’s a problem with women in Hollywood but I will say this has been a great year for women in pictures. Maybe it doesn’t seem like it because there may not be a clear frontrunner for best actress and it’s tough to know who to rally behind. Are there not as many pictures in contention with women in the lead? Sure. But it’s not like Boyhood or Selma or Birdman or Mr. Turner or Foxcatcher are taking away spots from more deserving films. The difference is that none of those films are “fluff”. None are an Argo or King’s Speech or an Artist. They’re all passion projects that are being rightly considered and put in the front. Nolan changed Murph from a boy to a girl, and by the way most of the hate I’m picking up is how the story concludes and there are plot holes abound, nothing to do with women and “emotions” (I’m a lover of the film and all things Nolan but everyone is right on the story). Gravity would not have made more money. It made a shit ton of money as it was. Jolie and DuVernay are directing movies with males in the leads. Should we tell them, “No. You need to direct a woman in the lead.” Also, though it doesn’t make up for the sheer lack of female-centric movies in consideration, Gone Girl is being considered as seriously (if not more so) as Theory of Everything.
Otherwise very good article. I know most of this isn’t so much about who should/should not be nominated for best actress but rather why aren’t there more female-centric movies being considered for best picture. It’s there that I agree with you.
Good one, Sasha.
There was another rant in the same vein yesterday by Linda Holmes on NPR, going-off on the Hollywood Reporter for their thinly veiled “approval” of Michelle McLaren as a possibly “suitable” director for Wonder Woman. This sexism permeate beyond the studios.
Here’s the link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2014/11/13/363739501/a-great-director-whos-also-a-woman-might-direct-wonder-woman
The dated stock characters reserved for women must be singled out and criticized, of course, but I’m afraid critics ARE indeed liking the new Dardennes’ film, look – http://www.metacritic.com/movie/two-days-one-night
Why are you not upset that the two important female directors this year use their talents to make movies entirely centered around men? Are they also part of this sexist Hollywood machine too?
BTW, Jennifer Lawrence is Silver Linings Playbook probably had more per capita screen time than Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.